Pairwise benchmark snapshot · Aug 16, 2026

Claude Sonnet 4 vs Qwen QwQ 32B benchmark

Name: Claude Sonnet 4 vs Qwen QwQ 32B AI benchmark comparison
Creator: CompareLLM
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This page compares Claude Sonnet 4 (Anthropic) and Qwen QwQ 32B (Alibaba) using the latest snapshots we have as of Aug 16, 2026. On preference Elo, Qwen QwQ 32B is ahead by 40 points (1,495 vs 1,455; seed-bootstrap (Aug 1, 2026)). On SWE-bench coding, Qwen QwQ 32B resolves 67.5% versus 62.8% (seed-bootstrap (Aug 1, 2026)). Claude Sonnet 4 streams faster (92 tok/s) while Qwen QwQ 32B is the cheaper output token ($1.2/1M). Claude Sonnet 4 has the larger context window (1M tokens). Every cell below is a dated snapshot from a named public source — we do not invent missing scores, and we do not run SWE-bench ourselves.

Share Analysis:

WhatsApp Telegram X / Post LinkedIn Reddit

Anthropic

Claude Sonnet 4

First Sonnet 4 generation. Bridge between 3.5/3.7 and Sonnet 5.

Elo 1,455$15/1M out

Alibaba

Qwen QwQ 32B

Alibaba specialized open reasoning model competing with frontier closed reasoning models.

Elo 1,495$1.2/1M out

Swap or Add Any Model to this Matchup

Instant pairwise benchmark recalculation across 400+ LLMs

Model A

Model B

Quick vs:vs Claude Opus 4.5 vs Claude Opus 4.6 vs Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Claude 3.7 Sonnet

Interactive Comparison Diagram

Matchup Breakdown

Tug-of-War Matchup Matrix

Category wins across intelligence, speed, and pricing efficiency.

Claude Sonnet 4 (3)vsQwen QwQ 32B (7)

Claude Sonnet 4: 3W (30%)Overall: Qwen QwQ 32BQwen QwQ 32B: 7W (70%)

← Claude Sonnet 4Qwen QwQ 32B →

Qwen QwQ 32B (5/5)

Intelligence & Reasoning

Preference Elo, Coding proficiency, SWE-bench & LiveBench accuracy

Preference Elo

1,455vs1,495

Coding Elo

1,468vs1,520

SWE-bench

62.8%vs67.5%

LiveBench

63.2%vs68%

GPQA Diamond

76.4%vs83.2%

Claude Sonnet 4: 0WQwen QwQ 32B: 5W

Claude Sonnet 4 (2/2)

Speed & Latency

Generation throughput and time to first token responsiveness

Output speed

92 tok/svs68 tok/s

Time to first token

220 msvs320 ms

Claude Sonnet 4: 2WQwen QwQ 32B: 0W

Qwen QwQ 32B (2/3)

Pricing & Capacity

Cost per million tokens and max context window length

Output price

$15/1Mvs$1.2/1M

Input price

$3/1Mvs$0.3/1M

Context window

1Mvs131k

Claude Sonnet 4: 1WQwen QwQ 32B: 2W

Capability Matchup Radar

Multi-Dimensional Capability Radar

Each spoke is a skill. Farther from the center is better (0–100th percentile). Tap any dot to inspect details.

Tap any node to inspect

Percentile 0–100

Dimensional AdvantageQwen QwQ 32B 4/6

Preference Elo

Qwen QwQ 32B

40 pts advantage

Throughput Speed

Claude Sonnet 4

24 tok/s faster

Price Efficiency

Qwen QwQ 32B

$13.80/1M cheaper

Full Benchmark Score Matrix

—

Elo

High is better

1,455

EloHigh is better

1,495+3%

Code Elo

High is better

1,468

Code EloHigh is better

1,520+4%

LiveBench

High is better

63.2%

LiveBenchHigh is better

68%+8%

SWE-bench

High is better

62.8%

SWE-benchHigh is better

67.5%+7%

GPQA

High is better

76.4%

GPQAHigh is better

83.2%+9%

TTFT

Low is better

+45%220 ms

TTFTLow is better

320 ms

Speed

High is better

+35%92 tok/s

SpeedHigh is better

68 tok/s

In $

Low is better

$3/1M

In $Low is better

$0.3/1M+900%

Out $

Low is better

$15/1M

Out $Low is better

$1.2/1M+1150%

Context

High is better

+663%1M

ContextHigh is better

131k

Interactive Simulator

Workload Cost & Savings Calculator

Simulate monthly production API costs based on published $/1M tokens.

Save up to 91% with Qwen QwQ 32B

Monthly Volume50M tokens/mo

Quick Presets:

Token Ratio (In vs Out)70% In / 30% Out

RAG / Search (10% out)Coding / Chat (50% out)

Claude Sonnet 4$330.00 / mo

In: $105.00Out: $225.00

Qwen QwQ 32B$28.50 / mo

In: $10.50Out: $18.00

Estimated Cost Delta

Qwen QwQ 32B is estimated to save $301.50/month ($3,618/year).

Based on 50M tokens (30% gen)

Key Selection Recommendations

1
Qwen QwQ 32B:Pick Qwen QwQ 32B when repo-level coding accuracy is the constraint.
2
Claude Sonnet 4:Pick Claude Sonnet 4 when time-to-first-token matters more than peak Elo.
3
Claude Sonnet 4:Pick Claude Sonnet 4 for million-token RAG or long-document jobs.

Recommended Workload Routing

Repo / coding agentsQwen QwQ 32B

Higher SWE-bench (67.5%).

High-volume chatQwen QwQ 32B

Lower output list price ($1.2/1M).

Voice / low-latency UIClaude Sonnet 4

Lower TTFT (220 ms).

Long-document RAGClaude Sonnet 4

Larger window (1M).

Screenshots / visionClaude Sonnet 4

Claude Sonnet 4 is the side marked multimodal in the catalog.

Target Workload	Recommended Pick	Evaluation Rationale
Repo / coding agents	Qwen QwQ 32B	Higher SWE-bench (67.5%).
High-volume chat	Qwen QwQ 32B	Lower output list price ($1.2/1M).
Voice / low-latency UI	Claude Sonnet 4	Lower TTFT (220 ms).
Long-document RAG	Claude Sonnet 4	Larger window (1M).
Screenshots / vision	Claude Sonnet 4	Claude Sonnet 4 is the side marked multimodal in the catalog.

Community Sentiment

Cast Your Matchup Vote

0 total votes

Community Discussions (0)

No comments posted on this matchup yet. Be the first to share an evaluation note!

Share card

The real PNG is generated at /compare/claude-sonnet-4-vs-qwq-32b/opengraph-image for crawlers.

PNG

CompareLLM Matrix

Verified head-to-head card

LIVE

Anthropic

Claude Sonnet 4

Elo 1,455

LiveBench63.2%

SWE-bench62.8%

Speed92 tok/s

Output cost$15/1M

Alibaba

Qwen QwQ 32B

Elo 1,495

LiveBench68%

SWE-bench67.5%

Speed68 tok/s

Output cost$1.2/1M

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is better overall, Claude Sonnet 4 or Qwen QwQ 32B?: Qwen QwQ 32B has the higher preference Elo in our latest snapshot (1,495). “Better” still depends on coding, price, and latency — see the table.
Which is better at coding, Claude Sonnet 4 or Qwen QwQ 32B?: Qwen QwQ 32B leads SWE-bench at 67.5% vs 62.8%. SWE-bench is one harness, not your repo.
Which is cheaper to run in production?: Qwen QwQ 32B output tokens are $1.2/1M versus $15/1M. Input prices and retry rates still move the real bill.
Which is faster, Claude Sonnet 4 or Qwen QwQ 32B?: Claude Sonnet 4 has the lower time-to-first-token (220 ms vs 320 ms). Tokens/sec is a separate column if you care about long completions.
Which has the larger context window?: Claude Sonnet 4 accepts 1M tokens versus 131k.
Can I self-host either model?: Qwen QwQ 32B is marked open-weights in our catalog. The other side is a closed API. Check the provider license before you ship weights.
Are these scores from CompareLLM’s own evals?: No. V1 aggregates public leaderboards (and optional first-party latency pings). Each cell names its source and date. Read /methodology.
What does preference Elo mean on this page?: Preference Elo is a crowd vote from LMArena / Arena. People see two hidden answers and pick the one they like more. The model that wins more often gets a higher Elo. That means people preferred it — not that it passed a school test. It is not SWE-bench, not accuracy, and not a number we invent. Claude Sonnet 4 and Qwen QwQ 32B Elo cells are dated snapshots from the named source — we do not compute Arena ourselves.

Similar Head-to-Head Comparisons

All Claude Sonnet 4 matchups →|All Qwen QwQ 32B matchups →

Claude Sonnet 4 vs Claude 3.7 Sonnet (previous sonnet)Claude Sonnet 4 vs Claude Sonnet 4.5 (next sonnet)Qwen QwQ 32B vs Qwen3 235B (previous qwen)Qwen QwQ 32B vs Qwen 3 Max (next qwen)Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Qwen QwQ 32B Claude Sonnet 5 vs Qwen QwQ 32B

Claude Sonnet 4 vs Qwen QwQ 32B benchmark

Interactive Comparison Diagram

Matchup Breakdown

Tug-of-War Matchup Matrix

Category wins across intelligence, speed, and pricing efficiency.

Claude Sonnet 4 (3)vsQwen QwQ 32B (7)

Claude Sonnet 4: 3W (30%)Overall: Qwen QwQ 32BQwen QwQ 32B: 7W (70%)

← Claude Sonnet 4Qwen QwQ 32B →

Qwen QwQ 32B (5/5)

Intelligence & Reasoning

Preference Elo, Coding proficiency, SWE-bench & LiveBench accuracy

Preference Elo

1,455vs1,495

Coding Elo

1,468vs1,520

SWE-bench

62.8%vs67.5%

LiveBench

63.2%vs68%

GPQA Diamond

76.4%vs83.2%

Claude Sonnet 4: 0WQwen QwQ 32B: 5W

Claude Sonnet 4 (2/2)

Speed & Latency

Generation throughput and time to first token responsiveness

Output speed

92 tok/svs68 tok/s

Time to first token

220 msvs320 ms

Claude Sonnet 4: 2WQwen QwQ 32B: 0W

Qwen QwQ 32B (2/3)

Pricing & Capacity

Cost per million tokens and max context window length

Output price

$15/1Mvs$1.2/1M

Input price

$3/1Mvs$0.3/1M

Context window

1Mvs131k

Claude Sonnet 4: 1WQwen QwQ 32B: 2W

Recommended Workload Routing

Repo / coding agentsQwen QwQ 32B

Higher SWE-bench (67.5%).

High-volume chatQwen QwQ 32B

Lower output list price ($1.2/1M).

Voice / low-latency UIClaude Sonnet 4

Lower TTFT (220 ms).

Long-document RAGClaude Sonnet 4

Larger window (1M).

Screenshots / visionClaude Sonnet 4

Claude Sonnet 4 is the side marked multimodal in the catalog.

Target Workload	Recommended Pick	Evaluation Rationale
Repo / coding agents	Qwen QwQ 32B	Higher SWE-bench (67.5%).
High-volume chat	Qwen QwQ 32B	Lower output list price ($1.2/1M).
Voice / low-latency UI	Claude Sonnet 4	Lower TTFT (220 ms).
Long-document RAG	Claude Sonnet 4	Larger window (1M).
Screenshots / vision	Claude Sonnet 4	Claude Sonnet 4 is the side marked multimodal in the catalog.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is better overall, Claude Sonnet 4 or Qwen QwQ 32B?

Qwen QwQ 32B has the higher preference Elo in our latest snapshot (1,495). “Better” still depends on coding, price, and latency — see the table.

Which is better at coding, Claude Sonnet 4 or Qwen QwQ 32B?

Qwen QwQ 32B leads SWE-bench at 67.5% vs 62.8%. SWE-bench is one harness, not your repo.

Which is cheaper to run in production?

Qwen QwQ 32B output tokens are $1.2/1M versus $15/1M. Input prices and retry rates still move the real bill.

Which is faster, Claude Sonnet 4 or Qwen QwQ 32B?

Claude Sonnet 4 has the lower time-to-first-token (220 ms vs 320 ms). Tokens/sec is a separate column if you care about long completions.

Which has the larger context window?

Claude Sonnet 4 accepts 1M tokens versus 131k.

Can I self-host either model?

Qwen QwQ 32B is marked open-weights in our catalog. The other side is a closed API. Check the provider license before you ship weights.

Are these scores from CompareLLM’s own evals?

No. V1 aggregates public leaderboards (and optional first-party latency pings). Each cell names its source and date. Read /methodology.

What does preference Elo mean on this page?

Preference Elo is a crowd vote from LMArena / Arena. People see two hidden answers and pick the one they like more. The model that wins more often gets a higher Elo. That means people preferred it — not that it passed a school test. It is not SWE-bench, not accuracy, and not a number we invent. Claude Sonnet 4 and Qwen QwQ 32B Elo cells are dated snapshots from the named source — we do not compute Arena ourselves.